Redistricting should be transparent

Voters should pick their elected officials, not the other way around. Seems obvious, doesn’t it? But it ain’t necessarily so. Too often the redrawing of voting districts, which is required every 10 years to conform with population shifts as reflected in the U.S. census, is done with an eye toward ensuring the reelection of officeholders.

This incumbency protection plan may be in the offing again this year as a special commission seeks to redraw Connecticut’s 151 state House and 36 state Senate districts as well as the five congressional districts.

Instead of adhering to a goal of keeping communities intact and/or combining cities and towns with similar demographics as well as similar economic, social and cultural interests, the architects of the plan typically make sure that Democratic districts stay in Democratic hands, Republican districts remain Republican and swing districts are kept to a minimum. Such political gyrations tend to take the mystery out of election night.

They also result in gerrymandered districts — that is, the contorted drawing of lines for political expediency, which result in districts that can look more like crabs or salamanders than rational, recognizable shapes.

In fact, anyone who is computer proficient and can access the census data — which is easily done — could draw a map that would meet the constitutional mandate of one-person, one-vote. But elected officials are not keen on that idea because it would put many more districts in play and potentially alter the balance of power.

While reapportionment may seem like an esoteric concept, it is at the heart of our republic. The fair and proper redrawing of districts guarantees that everyone’s voice is heard equally, that billions of dollars in state and federal aid are directed appropriately and that Black, Indigenous, Latino and Asian communities are not diluted and left powerless.

Whether Connecticut’s reapportionment commission is acting in voters’ best interests or in their own is hard to know. As in past years, the process has largely been shrouded in secrecy. Transparency has not been the hallmark of the commission, which is mostly comprised of state legislative leaders.

In an effort to flip the script, the commission should heed the following recommendations:

Educate the public on the requirements for redistricting: how the state draws its lines, the laws and priorities that govern its decisions, and the timeline. This should be done immediately, and the material should be available online in Spanish as well as English. This will help manage the public’s expectations and foster transparency.

Hold additional in-person and virtual hearings across the state at different times during the week to enable engagement and participation from as many residents as possible. These hearings should be scheduled, and the agendas advertised, through the General Assembly website and social media accounts.

Create multiple avenues for public comment in addition to public hearings. For example, a closely monitored website portal or email address would be advisable. Residents should be encouraged to speak about their communities — communities of color, communities of place, economic communities, cultural communities — and to say how they want to be grouped and represented.

Provide translation services of all meetings in American Sign Language and other languages as identified by local representatives. Nearly 12 percent of state residents speak Spanish as their primary language, and they deserve the same opportunity to be heard as native English speakers.

Offer an opportunity for public comment at least two weeks after the publication of the draft maps and two weeks after the publication of final proposed maps.

Make internal planning meetings and other deliberations open to the public, either by live streaming or, at a minimum, publishing full transcripts/videos of the meetings to the General Assembly website within 24 hours.

In cases where communities of interest are divided, written justification should be provided. The report should be released concurrently with the maps and should be available for public review and comment online.

The commission on reapportionment has a golden opportunity break with the past and shine a light on the process. It would be a shame if it was squandered.

Michele Jacklin is a board member and Cheri Quickmire is executive director of Common Cause in Connecticut.